That's quite easy to do in G4FON. Simply increment the character count to 40 then go into Settings and all the characters will be there with a checkbox by each one. Just uncheck the ones you don't want to learn. Fully customizable.

There's a similar hack in LCWO.net, but it's fairly tedious to set up, and you lose any "make most recently added character happen more often" functions. You also lose the lesson progress tracking, but that might be seen as an advantage...

It's a pity that most of these programs have no option to choose a different sequence. It'd be nice to be able to swap between them, go to lesson 13 (or wherever) and know they were all using the same progression (even if you had to configure that progression yourself first time round).

That's not entirely correct. In JLMC you can use the [/Source/Selected characters] mode and enter any letters you want to practice. On a side note, you can also use that to have some characters occur more often by including them more than once.

You do have a point, though, and I have addressed it in the next version.

My response was colored by the fact that I thought you were trolling. I still think you are.

Most people who think they have found a bug and want to "share" send an email. My email address is easily accessible from a number of sources.

You're claiming that JLMC sucks when it comes to scoring. I'm claiming it's the best scoring available, as it rates your performance in real time and maximizes your score when you make mistakes.

I have told you how the performance is rated when I use your example text and input. The precise score may be affected by when you input what, but there should not be any way to get a higher score than what I said.

If you really have a problem with the software, feel free to contact me by email. I'd be happy to help you out, and if you find a bug I will fix it.

My response was colored by the fact that I thought you were trolling. I still think you are.

No, not at all. May be the wrong use of a foreign language at my side.

I don't want you to correct anything, I just take and use the program as is. I only think it is not very usefull to make graphs of progress, what you said to plan, when the progress /errorrate is not measured correct.

I understand that it is very difficult to measure the errors in a text, because there may be or may be not a delay between sent and entered text. No problem when error free, but in the case of errors you have to catch the next correct text, and you do not know where that starts. Especially not when the error rate increases. That may require correlation of strings etc.

It is not a point here, I am not interested in progress because I know that is very slow and normally hidden deep in the daily noise, and I don't need graphs and numbers in order to keep being motivated, or increase motivation. I just exercise for years already high speed on a daily basis, and that's it. Motivated or not.

When you want speed progress, and your development of skill is not in your personal saturation area, it is well known that you gain speed when you overload yourself with higher speed, and go back to the desired speed. A program is the correct way to practice that method. Not QSO rag chewing.

So I do not say that you are not doing a good job, I just experienced that the errorcounting was in error, and I did a little test to proof that.

I just experienced that the errorcounting was in error, and I did a little test to proof that.

To me, that is a problem when you throw that out in a public forum but are not willing to find out if you are right.

Like I said, I am not able to reproduce the scores you claim to see. I also explained how JLMC may score the performance example you gave.

Aside from that, you are wrong about how to best score a performance. You put way too much emphasis on character position, i.e. R and space should be scored correctly in your example and everything else should be errors. That's a rather primitive way to do the scoring, and if you rely on a method like that you will not get sensible scores when you make more subtle mistakes.

For instance, the system may send PARIS and you enter PRIS. How many mistakes are there ? JLMC will tell you that there is one, as long as you enter each character after it is sent.

The system sends ABCDE and you enter ACBDE. How many errors ? You will claim there are two, JLMC correctly only reports one. (The system sent 5 characters, you entered 5 characters, 4 of your characters matched the sent text in correct order. The 4 matches would be ACDE or ABDE depending on weather.)

There are many subtleties like that, and you will only grasp why it should work like that if you spend time on trying to understand instead of just throwing out complaints based on your lack of knowledge.

Aye. In the learning there're plenty of ways that can come in; trying to catch every character when they're coming at you just a bit too much too fast, trying to type (write, speak, or otherwise record) what you've just heard whilst still listening for the next, and so on. I guess the trick is probably to identify the anxiety trigger-point, and then move it so it's triggered less often...

For me, the crunch is mostly from missing next few characters while I'm trying to record the ones I've just heard. There's an "it all falls apart" point that seems to depend on a number of things; the session length, the tone pitch and quality of the morse, the relative frequency of short morse characters, the word length, and so on.

On a good day, with G4FON set to a frequency around 400-450 Hz, the volume fairly low, a little added random noise, and morse at 15/13, two-minute sessions (typically around 150 characters) are usually comfortable. That seems to be about my limit for actually recording what I hear. Raise the pitch, or make the tone too pure, or too loud, or the word speed any much faster, and it all falls apart; ears ringing, fingers cramping...

I just experienced that the errorcounting was in error, and I did a little test to proof that.

To me, that is a problem when you throw that out in a public forum but are not willing to find out if you are right.

I replied on postings from your hand made in the public in this thread. And furthermore you are denying the result of my simple test in public, and inviting me in public to describe stepwise. So I wrote in public the simple test I performed, in order to give some fundament to my feelings that the errorscore is at fault

Quote

Like I said, I am not able to reproduce the scores you claim to see. I also explained how JLMC may score the performance example you gave.

Everybody reading this and interested, is able to check it by trying it for himself.I put the speed on 15/15 made a testfile PARIS PARIS ... 15 times repeated.Play the file and during playing type in the same way I should decode Morse signals but wrong by typing SIRAP SIRAP etc.

The copy is on the screen, and just as meant to be.May be I do something stupid. When that is true, OK, that is science, I did the best I can, everybody can repeat my test and find out for himself.

Quote

Aside from that, you are wrong about how to best score a performance. You put way too much emphasis on character position, i.e. R and space should be scored correctly in your example and everything else should be errors. That's a rather primitive way to do the scoring, and if you rely on a method like that you will not get sensible scores when you make more subtle mistakes.

Sensible way should be the Levenshtein distance, (Wikipaedia explains) that means roughly the number of strictly defined edit operations required,are the number of errors.

I repeat:I am not proposing a better way to count errors, I only posted that it has in my opinion no sense to publish graphs when the data the gtaphs are based on are insufficient reliable.

Quote

For instance, the system may send PARIS and you enter PRIS. How many mistakes are there ? JLMC will tell you that there is one, as long as you enter each character after it is sent.

OK, how many errors has the system to present when I repeatedly type SAPIR instead od PARIS? Not the number I experienced and you could not reproduce.

I am not proposing another method of error counting because:

I am not interested at all in the produced figures by the program because I felt they were not correct and furthermore because I am interested in exercising and not in errors numbers.

you run it for 2mins..... simple thing I would do is extend that time to say 5+ mins.

When I'm trynig to make a record of the characters I've heard it's a matter of the longer it runs the worse it gets. If the session's too long then there will be holes in my record of it, and that just makes things more frustrating.

Only the RockMite has a fixed side-tone. The others are variable in steps, and I have them set around 400-450.

I find it helps not to use the same tone all the time, or my ears start ringing sooner, and once they start I've no choice but to take a break for however long it takes for them to stop, and then some. Lower volume, lower pitch, slight pitch variations, and a little added background noise all help keep my ears from ringing.

Copyright 2000-2016 eHam.net, LLC
eHam.net is a community web site for amateur (ham) radio operators around the world.
Contact the site with comments or questions.
WEBMASTER@EHAM.NETSite Privacy Statement